A Technique for Stiffness Characteristics Automated Correction of the Complex Shell Model of the Spacecraft Structure


Аuthors

Igolkin A. A.*, Filipov A. A.**, Kuznetsov A. V.***, Safin A. I.****

Samara National Research University named after Academician S.P. Korolev, Moskovskoe shosse, 34, Samara, Russia

*e-mail: kin.aa@ssau.ru
**e-mail: iskander-filipov@yandex.ru
***e-mail: al.vl.kuznetsov@mail.ru
****e-mail: safin@ssau.ru

Abstract

The article presents an innovative technique for the spacecraft finite element models (FEM) automated correction. The study is focused on solving an actual problem of the spacecraft  finite element shell-type models dynamic analysis accuracy increasing.
The said technique is based on application of the differential evolution (DE) method in conjunction with integration into CAE systems via PyAnsys. The authors parameterized 152 characteristics of the model, including stiffness and damping parameters with account for their physical limitations that guarantee of the mathematical model correctness. To minimize discrepancies between the computed and experimental data, an objective function was used that accounted to the account frequency errors and the values of the MAC-criterion. The modal criterion of modal fidelity (MAC) serves as the the quality of convergence criterion of the calculated and experimental data.
The key results of the study are as follows:
- MAC-criterion improvement up to 0.75-1.0 (average value of 0.92) was achieved after 300 optimization iterations;
- The frequencies error was reduced from 54.2% to 1.8%;
- Optimal damping factor, ensuring vibration accelerations convergence  within 15%, was selected.
The main advantages of the technique are:
- Full automation of the process (correction time reduction by 4–5 times);
- The account for real structural specifics (embedded elements, nonlinearities of the junctions);
- Possibility of computations parallelizing.
Practical significance of the work is confirmed by the technique successful application for the spacecraft vibration strength analyzing, which allowed the virtual tests reliability increasing. Implementation of this elaboration is capable to reduce the number of full-scale tests, as well as accelerate and cheapen the certification process, which is of prime importance for the both small-scale and upgraded spacecraft (the small-scale spacecraft flight worthiness, accelerated implementation of structural changes and qualification tests programs optimization).
Conclusion outlines prospective areas for the technique development, including accounting for the temperature effects, integration with digital design systems and of machine learning methods application. The presented results demonstrate significant potential of the elaboration for wide application in the aerospace industry.

Keywords:

modal testing, finite element model validation, differential evolution method, automated model parameter correction, variable parameters selection, small spacecraft

References

  1. Baruch M. Optimization procedure to correct stiffness and flexibility matrices using vibration tests. AIAA Journal. 1978;16(11):1208-1210. DOI: 10.2514/3.61032
  2.  Berman A. Comment on “Optimal weighted orthogonalization of measured modes”. AIAA Journal. 1979;17(8):927-928. DOI: 10.2514/3.7529
  3.  Berman A, Nagy EJ. Improvement of large analytical model using test data. AIAA Journal. 1983;21(8):1168-1173. DOI: 10.2514/3.60140
  4.  Gysin HP. Critical application of an error matrix method for location of finite element modeling inaccuracies. 4th International Modal Analysis Conference. 1986. Vol. 2. p. 1339-1351.
  5.  He J, Ewins DJ. Analytical Stiffness Matrix Correction Using Measured Vibration Modes. International Journal of Analytical and Experimental Modal Analysis. 1986;1(3):9-14.
  6.  Lieven NAJ, Ewins DJ. Expansion of modal data for correlation. Image Management and Communication. 1990. p. 605-609.
  7.  Avershyev AS, Bobylev SS, Falin KA. The updated verification procedure of detailed finite element structural models of rocket-space technology for analysis of dynamic loading in flight by the example of the progress MS cargo transport vehicle. Space Engineering and Technology. 2018(1):40-53.
  8.  Lieven NAJ, Waters TP. The application of high density measurements to dynamic finite element reconciliation. Proceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering (February 01–28, 1995; San Jose, CA). p. 185-192.
  9.  Krasnorutskiy DA, Berns VA, Lakiza PA, et al. Method of freeing a fixed dynamic model of an aircraft. Izvestiya Samarskogo nauchnogo tsentra Rossiiskoi akademii nauk. 2019;21(1):37-44. (In Russ.).
  10.  Mares С, Mottershead JE, Friswell MI. Stochastic model updating: Part 1 — theory and simulated example. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing. 2006;20(7):1674-1695. DOI: 10.1016/j.ymssp.2005.06.006
  11.  Mares С, Dratz B, Mottershead JE, et al. Model updating using Bayesian Estimation. Proceedings of ISMA2006: International Conference on Noise and Vibration Engineering (September 18–20, 2006; Heverlee, Belgium). p. 2607–2616.
  12.  Marwala T. Finite Element Model Updating Using Computational Intelligence Techniques: Applications to Structural Dynamics. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media; 2010. 268 p.
  13.  Lam HF, Yang J, Au SK. Bayesian model updating of a coupled-slab system using field test data utilizing an enhanced Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation algorithm. Engineering Structures. 2015;102:144–155. DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.08.005
  14.  Heylen W, Lammens S, Sas P. Modal Analysis Theory and Testing. 2nd ed. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium; 1998. 167 p.
  15.  Allemang R.J. The modal assurance criterion (MAC): twenty years of use and abuse. Sound and vibration. 2003;37(8):14-23.
  16.  Nikolaev SM. Identification of parameters of dynamics models of complex-profile parts during milling processing: PhD thesis. Moscow, BSTU; 2017. 187 p. (In Russ.).
  17.  Kirilin AN, Akhmetov RN, Shakhmatov EV, et al. Experimental and technological small spacecraft “AIST-2D”. Samara: SamNTs RAN, 2017. 324 p. (In Russ.).
  18.  Igolkin AA, Safin AI, Filipov AG. Modal analysis of the dynamic mockup of “AIST–2D” small spacecraft. Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering. 2018;17(2):100-108. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.18287/2541-7533-2018-17-2-100-108
  19.  Filipov AG. Computational and experimental methodology for determining vibration loads for accelerated testing of spacecraft design. PhD thesis. Samara: Samara National Research University; 2022. 155 p. (In Russ.).
  20.  Bezmozgiy IM, Sofinsky AN, Chernyagin AG. The simulation in problems of vibration strength of rocket and space hardware. Space engineering and technology. 2014;6(3):71–80. (In Russ.). EDN: TEMDRT
  21.  Shorr BF, Buyukli TV, Shorstov VA, et al. Developing calculation method for forced vibrations of turbomachines of a blisk type blades. Aerospace MAI Journal. 2018;25(1):28-38. (In Russ.).
  22.  Khmelnitskii YA, Salina MS, Kataev YA. Spacecraft solar batteries dynamic analysis. Aerospace MAI Journal. 2018;25(2):52-60. (In Russ.).
  23.  Tereshko AG. Computational-and-Experimental Technique for Dynamic Characteristics Determining of the GTE Damping Supports with Elastic Rings. Aerospace MAI Journal. 2024;31(4):159-166. (In Russ.).
  24.  Berns VA, Zhukov EP, Marinin DA. Identification of the Structures Dissipative Properties According to the Experimental Modal Analysis Results. Vestn. Mosk. Gos. Tekh. Univ. im. N.E. Baumana, Mashinostr. [Herald of the Bauman Moscow State Tech. Univ., Mech. Eng.]. 2016(4):4–23. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.18698/0236-3941-2016-4-4-23

mai.ru — informational site of MAI

Copyright © 1994-2025 by MAI